Contesting Mitochondrial Donation: The Cluster Against

Chapter

Abstract

In contrast to the coalition approach of the for-cluster, the against-cluster included a smaller set of institutions and individuals with different reasons for opposition. This cluster were unable and sometimes unwilling to mobilise around a centralised and connected campaign, and operated a set of boundary and alignment work practices to navigate and mitigate misalignment among themselves, particularly in relation to issues of science, the secular, and the religious. We explore the ways in which each cluster reflected on the activities of the other, and how this positioning shaped their own actions, strategies and future thinking. While the against-cluster recognised distinct challenges of operating against a well-resourced and dominant mainstream position, those in the for-cluster positioned themselves as respectful of alternative voices and the democratic process.

Keywords

Boundary-work Legitimacy Mitochondrial donation Against-cluster Science-religion 

References

  1. CARE. (2014a). New polling raises public safety concerns about three parent children proposals. https://www.care.org.uk/news/latest-news/new-polling-raises-public-safety-concerns-about-three-parent-children-proposals [accessed 11 Dec 2017].
  2. CARE. (2014b). Fewer than one in five back the creation of three parent children, finds new poll. https://www.care.org.uk/news/latest-news/fewer-one-five-back-creation-three-parent-children-finds-new-poll [accessed 11 Dec 2017].
  3. CARE. (2015). ComRes CARE 3 poll. http://www.comresglobal.com/polls/care-three-parent-embryo-poll-february-2015/ [accessed 29 Oct 2017].
  4. Christian Medical Fellowship. (2017). CMF’s future plans—2020 ACTIVE vision. https://www.cmf.org.uk/resources/publications/content/?context=article&id=26585 [accessed 8 Dec 2017].
  5. Church of Scotland. (2012, December 6). Official response: HFEA consultation: Medical frontiers. http://www.scpo.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/019-HFEA-Mitochondrial-transfer-Consultation.pdf.
  6. CORE. (2017). http://corethics.org [accessed 14 Nov 2017].
  7. Human Genetics Alert. (2012, November). Human genetic engineering on the doorstep. http://www.hgalert.org/Mitochondria%20briefing.pdf [accessed 14 Nov 2017].
  8. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Knapton, S. (2015, February 24). Three parent babies: Women paid £500 to become ‘second mothers’. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11430786/Three-parent-babies-women-paid-500-to-become-second-mothers.html [accessed 29 Oct 2017].
  10. MacKellar, C. (2014, February 10). Questions relating to ‘mitochondrial replacement’. BioNews. http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_395064.asp [accessed 14 Nov 2017].
  11. MacKellar, C. (2017). Kinship identities in the context of UK maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer legislation. The New Bioethics, 23(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mikami, K., & Stephens, N. (2016). Local biologicals and the politics of standardization: Making ethical pluripotent stem cells in the United Kingdom and Japan. BioSocieties, 11(2), 220–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Science and Technology Committee. (2014, October 22). Oral evidence: Mitochondrial donation, HC 730.Google Scholar
  14. Watermeyer, R., & Rowe, G. (2014, September 19). Evaluation of the ComRes CARE 3—Parent embryo survey. Final report.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Social and Political SciencesBrunel University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations